Simple Question on Sola Fide

[BartholomewB]

Thank you!

I just read most of that article by Jimmy Akin (it was very loooong ), and it certainly seems to suggest that Catholics and Protestants often talk past each other due to our different definitions of the term ‘faith’. That would certainly explain a lot of the problems and arguments on both sides of the issue. It sure makes these types of arguments between us look a little more silly, doesn’t it?

Right! “Talking past each other” can also apply, I think, to the apparent contradiction between James and Paul. That’s the point I was trying to make in my post #19 on this thread: it’s easy to see that different meanings could arise from the contrasting local environments in which they are preaching the Gospel. Paul’s main concern is his Gentile converts, for whom Christianity is in many ways too Jewish, while James has the opposite problem. His Jerusalemites are worried that the new faith isn’t Jewish enough, and that their friends and relatives are ostracizing them as apostates.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thomas1981 You asked:

How do Protestant churches based on sola fide incorporate the Book of James and its emphasis on the necessity of good works into their theology?

Short answer: They seem to interpret it away.

Longer answer:

Many of our non-Catholic Christian friends are very uncomfortable with James 2.

JAMES 2:22, 24 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James and St. Paul are in complete harmony on the justification issue (and all issues). Luther did not seem to think this.

In my experience, many Protestants just do not assert what James says: You are “justified by works and not by faith alone.”

They DO usually assert something that St. Paul never says: “You ARE justified by faith ALONE.”

Summary of Protestant theology on Justification:

• Denial of James, when James states: —You are NOT justified by faith ALONE.
• Assertion of something St. Paul never says: — You ARE justified by faith ALONE.

Protestant children or Catholic kids being taught in Protestant Sunday School (as was the case with me) get bombarded with this faith ALONE concept from the time they are little kids.

The concept NEEDS “bombardment” and lots of reinforcement because it goes deeply against what is clearly stated in the Epistle of James.

Protestants sometimes make up for this implicit denial of James explicit teaching by emphasizing the importance of works. But ask Protestants if works are “necessary” and you will get a different answer (they cannot usually affirm this).

The reasons for these differences are complex and foundational.

One reason is that Protestants view grace differently than we do as Catholics (imputed vrs. infused). Grace is often viewed as God’s Divine favor. Catholics affirm this too but go further stating that it is no less than God’s Divine life in us and through us.

Another reason is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus often gets reduced to forgiveness of sins by some (not all) Protestants. This leads primarily to a courtroom view of salvation. We as Catholics affirm this, but see us as being made sons and daughters in the Son as a much more correct way of looking at this. We take this for granted and so we often are speaking a “different language” when talking to Protestants about this issue.

Steve Wood once said something to the effect of: “See how big a deal someone makes out of really being a son or daughter of God, and I will show you someone who asserts or denies Catholic theology based on this.”

Another is many Protestants tend to look at justification as a mere moment whereas Catholics see justification as a moment followed by a lifelong process.

(There are other foundational reasons too)

Because of their ingrained rejection of the plain words of James 2:24 from the time they are very young, is why I try not to appeal to James 2:24 in my personal discussions with Protestants on the justification issue.

It has been futile just asserting the verse for what it says. I have even ran into Protestant justification roadblocks appealing to the Gospels concerning the justification issue. Some have gone so far as to say: “the Gospels are not relevant for gentiles (sic) concerning justification, so you have to look at Paul”!

I usually just appeal to St. Paul ALONE to show the necessity of some works (works for those that can—such as adults), as well as the inappropriateness of other works concerning salvation (such as Old Covenant ritual works of Law, or works done on your own apart from grace).

Protestants tend to not be able to see the difference of what Wood calls “grace works” (God working in and through us) vrs. “works” on your own accord so they tend to reject all works in the economy of salvation.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Dpoc41]

http://i1.wp.com/catholicmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/544136_182227048593712_116399177_n.jpg

 

[Thomas1981]

Thomas1981 You asked:

Short answer: They seem to interpret it away.

Longer answer:

Many of our non-Catholic Christian friends are very uncomfortable with James 2.

JAMES 2:22, 24 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James and St. Paul are in complete harmony on the justification issue (and all issues). Luther did not seem to think this.

In my experience, many Protestants just do not assert what James says: You are “justified by works and not by faith alone.”

They DO usually assert something that St. Paul never says: “You ARE justified by faith ALONE.”

Summary of Protestant theology on Justification:

• Denial of James, when James states: —You are NOT justified by faith ALONE.
• Assertion of something St. Paul never says: — You ARE justified by faith ALONE.

Protestant children or Catholic kids being taught in Protestant Sunday School (as was the case with me) get bombarded with this faith ALONE concept from the time they are little kids.

The concept NEEDS “bombardment” and lots of reinforcement because it goes deeply against what is clearly stated in the Epistle of James.

Protestants sometimes make up for this implicit denial of James explicit teaching by emphasizing the importance of works. But ask Protestants if works are “necessary” and you will get a different answer (they cannot usually affirm this).

The reasons for these differences are complex and foundational.

One reason is that Protestants view grace differently than we do as Catholics (imputed vrs. infused). Grace is often viewed as God’s Divine favor. Catholics affirm this too but go further stating that it is no less than God’s Divine life in us and through us.

Another reason is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus often gets reduced to forgiveness of sins by some (not all) Protestants. This leads primarily to a courtroom view of salvation. We as Catholics affirm this, but see us as being made sons and daughters in the Son as a much more correct way of looking at this. We take this for granted and so we often are speaking a “different language” when talking to Protestants about this issue.

Steve Wood once said something to the effect of: “See how big a deal someone makes out of really being a son or daughter of God, and I will show you someone who asserts or denies Catholic theology based on this.”

Another is many Protestants tend to look at justification as a mere moment whereas Catholics see justification as a moment followed by a lifelong process.

(There are other foundational reasons too)

Because of their ingrained rejection of the plain words of James 2:24 from the time they are very young, is why I try not to appeal to James 2:24 in my personal discussions with Protestants on the justification issue.

It has been futile just asserting the verse for what it says. I have even ran into Protestant justification roadblocks appealing to the Gospels concerning the justification issue. Some have gone so far as to say: “the Gospels are not relevant for gentiles (sic) concerning justification, so you have to look at Paul”!

I usually just appeal to St. Paul ALONE to show the necessity of some works (works for those that can—such as adults), as well as the inappropriateness of other works concerning salvation (such as Old Covenant ritual works of Law, or works done on your own apart from grace).

Protestants tend to not be able to see the difference of what Wood calls “grace works” (God working in and through us) vrs. “works” on your own accord so they tend to reject all works in the economy of salvation.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Thank you. This is exactly my experience.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hello again, Dustin. Here we go!

Sorry for the long absence. I have been a bit busy for my own good. Having strokes gives you all the free time in the world, yet I still can fill up a day lol.

Why couldn’t his work assisted his faith?
Of course his work could have assisted his faith, and it did. But that’s not what James is saying here. In verse 22 he is saying one or the other of two things, depending on which meaning of the verb synergein you go for. He is saying either that Abraham’s faith assisted his works (faith, pistis, is the subject of the verb) or that his faith and his works were acting together.

Couldn’t James be stating that by Abraham’s faith came the work? In a sense they would be working together.

**If he did a work but had no faith, is that work done in vain? **
As far as justification goes, yes, it is done in vain. As I said in an earlier post (#19), works alone are insufficient as a means of justification.

**We do God’s work because of our faith. **
Yes.

**Abraham took his son to the altar as instructed because of his faith. Without that faith it would have not happened. **
Agreed.

He trusted God.
Certainly!

His work assisted his faith because by his faith God saw his work as righteous.
Yes, I can see that his work assisted his faith, just as I can also see that his faith assisted his works. In the case of Abraham and Isaac that he is citing here, James is telling us – in my view – that Abraham’s faith and works were assisting one another and were the joint cause of his justification.

As far as being justified, we are made righteous by our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s time, it was different than it is for you and I. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and his audience was Messianic Jews.

In the meantime, another highly apposite comment has appeared on this thread (#29) in which JonNC links to a discussion by Jimmy Akin of the contrasting meanings that the word “faith” has acquired in Catholic and Protestant use. His starting point is the phrase “faith, hope, and charity.” He says that Catholic writers, when they use the word “faith,” tend to bear in mind that Paul is using the three words to discriminate between three different things, with the result that “faith” (in the Catholic sense) is separate from hope and charity, which are also separate from one another. In Protestant use, however, “faith” is commonly understood as a shorthand expression (I’m paraphrasing Jimmy Akin here) for faith-hope-charity taken as a single virtue. If I’ve understood him correctly, his argument boils down to this: Yes, justification is by faith alone if you’re using “faith” in the Protestant sense, but not if you’re using it in the Catholic sense.

Please take a look at the link (below). I’d like to hear your reaction, which may perhaps take us a big step forward.

Regards
Bart

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

A good article. I like how he acknowledged that Evangelicals believed that if a person had faith, the must act on such faith. Sadly, we often get lumped into the OSAS camp. Every Evangelical I know from UMC to Non denom will tell you that one must live as a disciple of Jesus Christ in order to have saving faith. I would agree with Mr. Akins line that faith encompasses hope and charity for if one has faith, those should flow.

Help out any?

 

[BartholomewB]

Hello again, Dustin. I’m sorry to hear about your stroke. Are you saying this is something that happened very recently, in the last few days? It must be very worrying for your family, as well as for yourself. But your latest post seems to be written with undiminished vigor, which can only be a hopeful sign!

More later. It’s a busy day here, just at the moment. Jimmy Akin’s timely intervention, courtesy of JonNC, seems to have helped us to settle our differences, or nearly all of them. I’ll get back to you later.

One last point (for the time being): It may be only a quibble, but the term “Messianic Jews” strikes me as an anachronism, since it is the name used by certain congregations in our own day. If we’re talking about the apostolic age, my preference would be for the older term Judeo-Christians, or simply Jewish Christians, to designate those who remained faithful to Jewish observances such as the dietary laws, the Sabbath, circumcision, and worship in the Temple.

Regards
Bart

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hello again, Dustin. I’m sorry to hear about your stroke. Are you saying this is something that happened very recently, in the last few days? It must be very worrying for your family, as well as for yourself. But your latest post seems to be written with undiminished vigor, which can only be a hopeful sign!

More later. It’s a busy day here, just at the moment. Jimmy Akin’s timely intervention, courtesy of JonNC, seems to have helped us to settle our differences, or nearly all of them. I’ll get back to you later.

One last point (for the time being): It may be only a quibble, but the term “Messianic Jews” strikes me as an anachronism, since it is the name used by certain congregations in our own day. If we’re talking about the apostolic age, my preference would be for the older term Judeo-Christians, or simply Jewish Christians, to designate those who remained faithful to Jewish observances such as the dietary laws, the Sabbath, circumcision, and worship in the Temple.

Regards
Bart

The strokes happened about 4 yrs ago.

 

[ffg]

All the folks I listen to are starting to run together, but the OP question reminds me of someone who explained the word belief (faith) as intended in the Bible is…

A pregnant word…

There is a lot more to it than where the quick glance leads you.

The word ‘belief’ (faith) in the context of first century Jerusalem is inclusive of participation.

As we Love (action) that which God made, we love God.

Thus following the greatest commandment and displaying what we want to share with others - belief (faith).

 

[BartholomewB]

Sorry for the long absence. I have been a bit busy for my own good. Having strokes gives you all the free time in the world, yet I still can fill up a day lol.

Couldn’t James be stating that by Abraham’s faith came the work? In a sense they would be working together.

As far as being justified, we are made righteous by our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s time, it was different than it is for you and I. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and his audience was Messianic Jews.

A good article. I like how he acknowledged that Evangelicals believed that if a person had faith, the must act on such faith. Sadly, we often get lumped into the OSAS camp. Every Evangelical I know from UMC to Non denom will tell you that one must live as a disciple of Jesus Christ in order to have saving faith. I would agree with Mr. Akins line that faith encompasses hope and charity for if one has faith, those should flow.

Help out any?

OK, Dustin, the heat is off. I’ve had a few minutes now to get back to our interesting conversation.

You write:
As far as being justified, we are made righteous by our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s time, it was different than it is for you and I. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and his audience was Messianic Jews.
Not only were his audience Judeo-Christians (“Messianic Jews”, in your phrase), he was one of them himself. In James’ day, and for close to a hundred years after that, the leaders of the Christian Church were constantly called upon to settle disputes that arose from the fact that Gentile Christians were pulling in one direction and Jewish Christians in another. As I said earlier, James’ Jerusalemites were concerned that the new faith was drifting too far away from mainstream Judaism, while for the Gentile Christians in Paul’s flock it wasn’t moving far enough.

Jimmy Akin has shown us that in post-Reformation theology the word “faith” has acquired two divergent definitions, on the one hand the broader definition preferred by Protestants ― we can call this one faith-P ― and a narrower definition in Catholic use, which we can label faith-C. The word “faith,” by itself, has no single, undisputed meaning that will be agreed upon by all the Christians who use the term.

Consequently, when we ask the question, “Justification by faith alone: True or false?” the answer is “true” if we’re talking about faith-P but “false” if we’re talking about faith-C.

Similarly, in the forties and fifties of the first century, the words “faith” and “works” will have had different meanings for James and his Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and for Paul and his Gentile Christians in Antioch, on the other.

Is there anything is this post that is unacceptable to you?

Regards
Bart

 

[aidanbradypop]

OK, Dustin, the heat is off. I’ve had a few minutes now to get back to our interesting conversation.

You write:
As far as being justified, we are made righteous by our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s time, it was different than it is for you and I. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and his audience was Messianic Jews.
Not only were his audience Judeo-Christians (“Messianic Jews”, in your phrase), he was one of them himself. In James’ day, and for close to a hundred years after that, the leaders of the Christian Church were constantly called upon to settle disputes that arose from the fact that Gentile Christians were pulling in one direction and Jewish Christians in another. As I said earlier, James’ Jerusalemites were concerned that the new faith was drifting too far away from mainstream Judaism, while for the Gentile Christians in Paul’s flock it wasn’t moving far enough.

VERY true. We can see that with the Church in Corinth. A professor of mine years ago called them Messianic Jews because by accounts they were still very much Jewish in belief and customs. What set them apart was their belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Jimmy Akin has shown us that in post-Reformation theology the word “faith” has acquired two divergent definitions, on the one hand the broader definition preferred by Protestants ― we can call this one faith-P ― and a narrower definition in Catholic use, which we can label faith-C. The word “faith,” by itself, has no single, undisputed meaning that will be agreed upon by all the Christians who use the term.

True. Some simply think faith is knowing who Jesus is and that is all.

Consequently, when we ask the question, “Justification by faith alone: True or false?” the answer is “true” if we’re talking about faith-P but “false” if we’re talking about faith-C.

In agreement here.

Similarly, in the forties and fifties of the first century, the words “faith” and “works” will have had different meanings for James and his Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and for Paul and his Gentile Christians in Antioch, on the other.

The jews had faith in Yaweh, yet still had to flow the Law (works in a sense).

Gentiles were usually pagan and their religious belief system was all about work and no faith if you could say that.

Here is a nice little article that I believe puts it perfectly.

compellingtruth.org/salvation-faith-works.html

Is there anything is this post that is unacceptable to you?

Not that I can see my friend.

 

[BartholomewB]

VERY true. We can see that with the Church in Corinth. A professor of mine years ago called them Messianic Jews because by accounts they were still very much Jewish in belief and customs. What set them apart was their belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

True. Some simply think faith is knowing who Jesus is and that is all.

In agreement here.

The jews had faith in Yaweh, yet still had to flow the Law (works in a sense).

Gentiles were usually pagan and their religious belief system was all about work and no faith if you could say that.

Here is a nice little article that I believe puts it perfectly.

compellingtruth.org/salvation-faith-works.html

Is there anything is this post that is unacceptable to you?

 

[BartholomewB]

VERY true. We can see that with the Church in Corinth. A professor of mine years ago called them Messianic Jews because by accounts they were still very much Jewish in belief and customs. What set them apart was their belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

True. Some simply think faith is knowing who Jesus is and that is all.

In agreement here.

The jews had faith in Yaweh, yet still had to flow the Law (works in a sense).

Gentiles were usually pagan and their religious belief system was all about work and no faith if you could say that.

Here is a nice little article that I believe puts it perfectly.

compellingtruth.org/salvation-faith-works.html

Is there anything is this post that is unacceptable to you?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Dustin, did you ever see a 1960s Italian western called *The Good the Bad and the Ugly? *If you did, you won’t have forgotten the famous line spoken by Tuco, the Mexican bandit played by Eli Wallach: “When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.”

Very wise words. Very sound advice. But I think that you and I have shown, here on this thread, that the converse is also true: “When you have to talk, talk. Don’t shoot.”

Dustin, you have helped me to reach a better understanding of the difficult question of justification, and the allied question of reconciling the apparent contradiction between James and Paul. Thank you for that.

I am also very grateful to Jon NC and, through his intermediary, to Jimmy Akin, without whose contribution I’m sure we wouldn’t have reached such an amicable solution so soon.

I look forward to our next encounter, and may it be as fruitful as this one was!

Kind regards,
Bart

Bart

I enjoyed this as well! Thanks for having an insightful debate/convo.

 

[Telstar]

Sorry for the long absence. I have been a bit busy for my own good. Having strokes gives you all the free time in the world, yet I still can fill up a day lol.

Ouch! Strokes suck.

It seems that you’re doing well, though. Prayers up!

Couldn’t James be stating that by Abraham’s faith came the work? In a sense they would be working together.

That’s the whole point. They were definitely working together. You can’t have one without the other, and still expect to be justified in the eyes of God.

That’s progress! Yay!

As far as being justified, we are made righteous by our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Abraham’s time, it was different than it is for you and I. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and his audience was Messianic Jews.

In Christianity or Judaism, faith = belief in God. Simple faith is always the beginning of justification.

A good article. I like how he acknowledged that Evangelicals believed that if a person had faith, the must act on such faith. Sadly, we often get lumped into the OSAS camp. Every Evangelical I know from UMC to Non denom will tell you that one must live as a disciple of Jesus Christ in order to have saving faith. I would agree with Mr. Akins line that faith encompasses hope and charity for if one has faith, those should flow.

“Saving faith” is a term that I’ve often seen used by non-Catholics. It has always confused me, until I read that article. Now, it makes much more sense. Catholics don’t typically use that kind of terminology. To us, faith is simply having a basic belief in God. Anything, from having an inkling that He might exist to a full blown assurance that He does, is what we refer to as faith. That’s why, in our way of thinking, ‘faith alone’ is not enough.

St. Paul says, “1 Corinthians 13:13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.”
There are three important gifts of grace that are given to us by God. They’re the basic necessities in living a Christian life. We have faith when we profess our firm belief in God. We have hope in receiving the promises made by God, when we follow all that Jesus Christ taught us. We have charity when we show our love for one another by performing acts of charity, as a sign of our love for God.

If we fail to put all of those gifts to use in our daily life, can we really claim to have true love for God? I think that’s what Paul teaches us, here:"1 Corinthians 13:[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity is what gives purpose to our faith and hope, and makes them more effective in our life, as we follow Jesus. Our acts (works) of love, that we do for others, are what completes our justification in righteousness. They confirm that we really do have a true love for God, because we’re willing to put that love into action. The more we act in charity, the holier we become, because by doing those things, we spread the love of God to all those that our acts of charity might touch. That’s how we grow in grace, and in the love of God, and that makes us better Christians.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Ouch! Strokes suck.

It seems that you’re doing well, though. Prayers up!

Thanks Lori

That’s the whole point. They were definitely working together. You can’t have one without the other, and still expect to be justified in the eyes of God.

I cannot speak for every Evangelical, but work is the product of faith. You can have faith first in a sense without work but work or “fruit” must be produced if it true faith. Those works come from what the Holy Spirit is doing in your life. Being the Arminian that I am, one can say no to the Holy Spirit, but that is a new thread lol.

In Christianity or Judaism, faith = belief in God. Simple faith is always the beginning of justification.

“Saving faith” is a term that I’ve often seen used by non-Catholics. It has always confused me, until I read that article. Now, it makes much more sense. Catholics don’t typically use that kind of terminology. To us, faith is simply having a basic belief in God. Anything, from having an inkling that He might exist to a full blown assurance that He does, is what we refer to as faith. That’s why, in our way of thinking, ‘faith alone’ is not enough.

I can see how that would make one stumble. One must believe to be saved yet once you believe then their are things to be done as a disciple of Christ.

If we fail to put all of those gifts to use in our daily life, can we really claim to have true love for God?

Can I go a step further and say that if we fail then do we have faith at all? We may stumble but I am talking about outright failing.

Charity is what gives purpose to our faith and hope, and makes them more effective in our life, as we follow Jesus. Our acts (works) of love, that we do for others, are what completes our justification in righteousness. They confirm that we really do have a true love for God, because we’re willing to put that love into action. The more we act in charity, the holier we become, because by doing those things, we spread the love of God to all those that our acts of charity might touch. That’s how we grow in grace, and in the love of God, and that makes us better Christians.

I would say that we are only justified by Christ cloaking us with righteousness from His death and resurrection. Our acts of love help sanctify us during this life as we grow in our relationship with Him. Make sense?

 

[Telstar]

Thanks Lori

You’re welcome!

I cannot speak for every Evangelical, but work is the product of faith. You can have faith first in a sense without work but work or “fruit” must be produced if it true faith. Those works come from what the Holy Spirit is doing in your life. Being the Arminian that I am, one can say no to the Holy Spirit, but that is a new thread lol.

Absolutely! When I say faith, of course I mean it in the strict sense of just meaning “belief”. Everything else follows from that simple beginning. Fruits will only come by our acting on the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Sure, sometimes we do fail to do that (I am certainly guilty of that ), but as long as we continue to try and follow through, we will still make progress.

I can see how that would make one stumble. One must believe to be saved yet once you believe then their are things to be done as a disciple of Christ.

Yep. We have to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”, by picking up our cross and following Jesus, every day. But, I don’t think any of us could ever do that without keeping our gaze fixed on Him.

Can I go a step further and say that if we fail then do we have faith at all? We may stumble but I am talking about outright failing.

Excellent point. Some people might think that once they’ve “accepted Jesus”, then they can do whatever they want without ever losing their salvation (OSAS). That just puts even more on Jesus, deliberately. He’s not a pack mule that we should expect to carry our sinful lives, while we refuse to make any effort to change. That’s not what He taught us. He said, “Go, and sin no more.” We have to make an effort to change. Sure, it’s hard, but if we’re unwilling to try, then why should we still expect Him to save us?

I would say that we are only justified by Christ cloaking us with righteousness from His death and resurrection. Our acts of love help sanctify us during this life as we grow in our relationship with Him. Make sense?

Absolutely, perfect sense.

 

[aidanbradypop]

You’re welcome!

Absolutely! When I say faith, of course I mean it in the strict sense of just meaning “belief”. Everything else follows from that simple beginning. Fruits will only come by our acting on the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Sure, sometimes we do fail to do that (I am certainly guilty of that ), but as long as we continue to try and follow through, we will still make progress.

Yep. We have to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”, by picking up our cross and following Jesus, every day. But, I don’t think any of us could ever do that without keeping our gaze fixed on Him.

Excellent point. Some people might think that once they’ve “accepted Jesus”, then they can do whatever they want without ever losing their salvation (OSAS). That just puts even more on Jesus, deliberately. He’s not a pack mule that we should expect to carry our sinful lives, while we refuse to make any effort to change. That’s not what He taught us. He said, “Go, and sin no more.” We have to make an effort to change. Sure, it’s hard, but if we’re unwilling to try, then why should we still expect Him to save us?

Absolutely, perfect sense.

And who would have thought an Evangelical Arminian and Catholics could get along so well lol.

A wise word from my late grandmother, “when Christians act like Christians, ole Satan better look out!”

 

[benhur]

All the folks I listen to are starting to run together, but the OP question reminds me of someone who explained the word belief (faith) as intended in the Bible is…

A pregnant word…

There is a lot more to it than where the quick glance leads you.

The word ‘belief’ (faith) in the context of first century Jerusalem is inclusive of participation.

As we Love (action) that which God made, we love God.

Thus following the greatest commandment and displaying what we want to share with others - belief (faith).

You can not participate until you see. You can not see until you are transformed, reborn, This is the work of God.

Life begins at conception, and growth begins immediately. Life does not began at "delivery’’.

Being is doing.

Reminds me of Gethsemane. Calvary was the definite “doing”, the work, but it really happened at the Gethsemane garden when Christ was still, and just “being” in His decision to be obedient. That is where the battle was, the faith, the participation, the will. Calvary was tough follow thru of what was already birthed in His innermost being. I would not apply James here in the negative, to say Gethsemane was conditional, needed to be proved, as to question the reality of Christs’ will to obey. But yes to apply James in the positive. Calvary was the fruit of His obedient will at Gethsemane.

 

[pilgrim_NL]

I have been following this thread. You all shared some good insights. Lately I have been wondering whether we don’t often forget that good works persé were not really what the start of the reformation was about. As was allready discussed, the main reformers (Luther, Calvin etc.) all agreed that good works must be done. It are the antinomians that pervert the reformation doctrine of sola fide. We commonly see this in the “free grace movements” etc. The main reformers never believed or confessed that one can live his or her life as he or she pleased because it just about believing.

*Heidelberg Catechism

Question 86
Since we have been delivered from our misery by grace through Christ without any merit of our own, why then should we do good works?

Answer
Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, is also restoring us by his Spirit into his image, so that with our whole lives we may show that we are thankful to God for his benefits, so that he may be praised through us, so that we may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over to Christ.

Question 87
Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and unrepentant ways?

Answer
By no means. Scripture tells us that no unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of God.*

Also, I was thinking, but I am no expert, is it possible that James and Paul describe justification in a different manner? Does justification not consist in the forgiveness of sins? How can we receive the forgiveness of sins other than by faith? If God forgives freely the moment I repented and believed, it seems strange that in daily confession of sins I have to “merit” it or contribute works in order to receive forgiveness, because the Gospel promise remains the same from day to day. I hope I explained myself clearly and I am looking forward to your responses.

Greetings

PS: forgive me if my grammar is a little of check, as a dutchman my english is not flawless

 

[Cathoholic]

aidanbradypop. You mentioned (bold mine):

I would say that we are only justified by Christ cloaking us with righteousness from His death and resurrection.

This exemplifies what I said when I stated:

One reason is that Protestants view grace differently than we do as Catholics (imputed vrs. infused). Grace is often viewed as God’s Divine favor. Catholics affirm this too but go further stating that it is no less than God’s Divine life in us and through us.

Catholics don’t deny Christ’s work as “cloaking us” (imputed righteousness of Christ), but Catholics also see Christ’s work as necessarily “transforming us” too (infused righteousness of Christ).

I am just trying to clarify the Catholic ideas here so when we discuss this issue, we are not using the “same language” to talk about “different things”.